Almost. He meant you to replace it with the exact code he posted, which doesn't include the <head> element twice.

Although, any new sites on the web shouldn't be using the transitional doctypes any more, as they were just to help olden day sites transition to the era of web standards—which has been around for a long time now.

There is 1 error. Duplicate id names on Lines 18 and 99. You should fix that, but most browsers will forgive if you don't, IN THIS CASE.Is it usually better to use classes rather than id's unless one MUST be unique. Otherwise, id's are overkill and sometimes troublesome... like now.

I concur with Ralph's comment about doctype's, too. You began your rewrites using the XHTML transitional doctype, so I stuck with that. But frankly, HTML 4.01 strict or XHTML strict would be better. So far, I have seen no justification for the "X" doctype. Even HTML4.01 would have sufficed nicely, and not been so fussy. The most important thing, thought, is to pick one doctype and stick with it throughout your site so the css will behave predictably on all pages.

There were several paragraph tag, table tag, and div tag errors on the page. They have all been fixed.

The remaining error is a case of duplicate id's which is up to you to fix because the code for the id resides on your css.

This is how the page looks with the HTML5 doctype that you posted. The duplicate ID's still flag an error, and a couple of html attributes are replaced by css. The best web pages are a good marriage between html and css. The validator helps you get there.